Copy of a publication in Tyndale Bulletin.

www.Tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale-Bulletin

THE ADAM-CHRIST TYPOLOGY IN PAUL

AND ITS DEVELOPMENT
IN THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS
John VanMaaren

Summary
This article examines the development of the Adam-Christ typology in
the early church. It begins by outlining the characteristics of typology
and considering Paul’s use of the Adam-Christ typology. It then looks
at the Adam-Christ typology in Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen,
Methodius, Augustine and Cyril of Alexandria. Each of these is
compared with Paul. For Paul, it is Christ’s death and resurrection
that correspond to Adam’s sin. The church fathers expand Paul’s
typology and these expansions eventually come to overshadow the
main point of correspondence for Paul, Christ’s death and
resurrection.

1. Introduction
One way the New Testament writers understood the person and work
of Christ was through the person and work of the first man, Adam.
Christ was pictured as the second Adam who succeeded where Adam
failed. This typological interpretation of the Old Testament was a
common way New Testament writers read the Old Testament in which
they found ‘types’ of Christ throughout the Old Testament that
prefigured different aspects of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection.
Because Paul’s writings contain the only explicit Adam-Christ
typology in the New Testament, this paper will compare his use of the
Adam-Christ typology with the early church fathers’ use in the writings
of Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen, Methodius, Augustine and Cyril of
276 TYNDALE BULLETIN 64.2 (2013)
Alexandria.1 This comparison will show a gradual development away
from Paul’s understanding of the Adam-Christ typology, which finds
its correspondence between Adam’s sin and Christ’s sacrificial death,
and toward a typology that finds its correspondence between Adam’s
sinful life and Christ’s sinless life.

2. A Genuine New Testament Typology

In his seminal work on typology, Typos: The Typological Inter-
pretation of the Old Testament in the New, Leonhard Goppelt defined
typology as ‘a prefiguration in a different stage of redemptive history
that indicates the outline or essential features of the future reality and
that loses its own significance when that reality appears’.2 This seventy
year-old definition notes three aspects of correspondence between type
and antitype that have retained general scholarly consensus. First, the
correspondence must be historical. It is a ‘theological interpretation of
history’ in the same way the Old Testament interpreted history
theologically, but done after the further revelation given in Christ.3 In
this way it differs from allegory ‒ correspondence between words
understood as inspired symbols removed from a historical context ‒ by
pointing out correspondences in God’s historical dealings with man.4
Second, the points of correspondence must be in essential rather than
accidental features. France helpfully redefined ‘essential’ as
‘theological’ and noted that a typological correspondence that was not
theological removed the basic assumption of typological interpretation,
the perception of a constant principle in the working of God.5 Third,
the correspondence is divinely ordained. While there is a greater
dissenting scholarly voice here, Ellis correctly noted that the
significance of Old Testament types for New Testament writers was

1 Tertullian also makes use of an Adam-Christ typology in On the Soul (44.10), but
very briefly.
2 Leonhard Goppelt, Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in
the New (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982; tr. from German, 1939): 177.
3 Francis Foulkes, ‘The Acts of God: A Study on the Basis of Typology in the Old
Testament’ in The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Text?: Essays on the Use of the Old
Testament in the New, ed. G. K. Beale (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994): 366.
4 Foulkes, ‘Acts of God’, 367.
5 R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament
Passages to Himself and to His Mission (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1971): 41.
VANMAAREN: Adam-Christ Typology in Paul 277
specifically their locus in God’s plan of redemption.6 Statements like
Paul’s in 1 Corinthians 10:117 show that the New Testament writers
understood typology to be divinely ordained and suggest that the
dissenting scholars may have confused the reality of a type’s divine
ordination with the early church’s belief in the same.
In addition to the typological correspondence’s being historical,
theological and divinely ordained, Goppelt noted that there must be a
heightening. The antitype fulfils the type yet exceeds it in some
essential way.8 Foulkes noted that ‘the difference lies in the incomplete
and preparatory nature of the type compared with the completeness and
finality of the antitype’.9
It is also important to understand what typology is not. It has
already been noted that typology is different from allegory because it is
grounded in history. In addition, typology is not prediction-fulfilment.
The type is neither a prediction nor the antitype a fulfilment of a
prediction. While Beale noted that in some cases of typology the Old
Testament writer appeared to be pointing to the future, this is rarely the
case.10 Lampe helpfully termed the type a ‘mystery’, secretly placed in
history by God only to be revealed in Christ.11 Typology is also not a
form of exegesis because it seeks to do more than understand the text in
its original context and therefore cannot be systematised. Foulke
acknowledged that typology reads a meaning into the text that is
foreign, but was quick to point out it does not introduce a foreign
principle into the text.12 It interprets the Old Testament event in its
literal context then uses this to point to how God has dealt with men in
Christ.

6 E. Earle Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (Ann Arbor, MI: Baker, 1957): 127.
7 ‘These things happened to them as examples (τυπικῶς) and were written down as
warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come’ (NIV).
8 Goppelt, Typos, 177.
9 Foulkes, ‘Acts of God’, 367.
10 G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old

Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011): 956.

11 G. W. H. Lampe, ‘The Reasonableness of Typology’ in Essays on Typology

(Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1957): 29.

12 Foulkes, ‘Acts of God’, 369-70.
278 TYNDALE BULLETIN 64.2 (2013)
3. The Adam-Christ Typology in Paul
Paul’s understanding of Adam is grounded in Genesis 1–3 and
influenced by post biblical Jewish reflection on Adam. While there is
little reflection of Genesis 3 as an explanation for human sinfulness in
the Jewish scriptural tradition, by the First Century this account had
become a prominent way of explaining the human condition.13
Regarding the Adam-Christ typology, the amount of variation and the
diversity of Scripture quotations suggest Paul was not the originator.14
It distances itself from most understandings of a primal man in
antiquity by its lack of speculative and metaphysical details.15
While elements of the Adam-Christ comparison appear elsewhere in
Paul, the Adam-Christ typology is most clearly outlined in two
passages.16 The most extended is Romans 5:12-21, but the germ of this
passage is found in 1 Corinthians 15, which will be addressed first.17 In
neither passage is Christology the focus. Rather, Paul employed the
Adam-Christ typology to argue for the reality of a bodily resurrection
of the dead in 1 Corinthians, and then in Romans to show the universal
validity of freedom from death.
In 1 Corinthians 15 the Adam-Christ typology appeared twice in
Paul’s defence of a general bodily resurrection of believers. It first
appeared in 15:20-23 where Paul appealed to the reality of Christ’s
resurrection to argue that believers will also rise. In verse 20 Paul calls
Christ the ‘firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep’. Barrett notes
that Paul used ‘firstfruits’ to mean ‘the first installment of the crop
which foreshadows and pledges the ultimate offering of the whole’.18
In this way Christ’s resurrection guarantees the believer’s resurrection.
The reason Christ could be the second Adam was because of his shared

13 James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1998): 86. Romans contains strong parallels to the Wisdom of Solomon, of which Paul
was certainly familiar. Also see Jubilees 3.
14 Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980; tr.

from German, 1980): 144.

15 Egon Brandenburger, Adam und Christus: exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche

Untersuchung zu Röm. 5, 12-21 (1. Kor. 15) (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1962):
159.
16 See for example Rom. 8:1; 13:14; 1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 2:17; Gal. 3:16; Eph. 1:13;

Col. 1:28.
17 Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary (Hermeneia, 60; Philadelphia:

Fortress Press, 1975): 287.

18 C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Black’s New

Testament Commentaries, 7; London: A & C Black, 1971): 350.

VANMAAREN: Adam-Christ Typology in Paul 279
humanity (15:21). Prefiguration is indicated by the initial γάρ that
links verse 21 with the previous verse and makes human nature a
necessary prerequisite of Christ’s role as the second Adam.19 The point
of correspondence was the universal scope of the consequences of their
action in verse 22: ‘For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made
alive.’ Commentators are generally agreed the second ‘all’ must refer
to all those in Christ rather than all humanity and this is the only
reading that fits the context.20 Paul argued for the certainty of the
resurrection of those already in Christ rather than the universality of
participation in Christ. The Adam-Christ typology allowed Paul to
argue from the certainty of death for those in Adam to the certainty of a
resurrection for those in Christ. Typological heightening is present in
the qualitative difference between death and life.21
Paul again employed the typological relationship in 15:44-49 where
he used it to argue for a bodily resurrection from the dead. Here there
are two points of correspondence and both involve heightening. First,
the origin of both involved a new type of life, but while the first Adam
received life (εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν) the second Adam became the giver of
life (εἰς πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν) (15:45). There is also a contrast between
the first Adam as a ‘being’ (ψυχήν) and the second Adam as a ‘Spirit’
(πνεῦμα). Second, the ‘descendants’ of each share in the likeness of
their progenitor, but while the first Adam was ‘from the dust of the
earth’ (ἐκ γῆς χοϊκός) the second Adam is ‘from heaven’ (ἐξ
οὐρανοῦ) (15:47). Paul’s addition of ‘first’ to ‘man’ in his free
quotation of Genesis 2:7 in 15:45 indicates his understanding of Adam
as a divinely ordained prefiguration of Christ.22
A long tradition has identified ‘from heaven’ in verse 47 with
Christ’s pre-existence and understood this second contrast to refer to
Adam and Christ’s origin. For the following reasons it is better to
understand ‘from heaven’ to refer to Christ’s present heavenly
resurrected state: (1) The context is concerned with Christ’s present

19 Beale, Biblical Theology, 440.

20 See especially W. V. Crockett, ‘The Ultimate Restoration of Αll Mankind:
1 Corinthians 15:22’ in Studia Biblica 1978: III. Papers on Paul and Other New
Testament Authors (Sheffield: Sheffield, 1980): 83-87. William Orr, 1 Corinthians
(ABS 32; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976): 332; Barrett, First Epistle to the
Corinthians, 352; Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT 39; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987): 750. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 269.
21 Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 268.
22 Beale, Biblical Theology, 440.
280 TYNDALE BULLETIN 64.2 (2013)
heavenly state as a guarantee of the believer’s future heavenly
existence and any discussion of origins is foreign to the passage. (2)
The reason Paul identified Christ as the one ‘from heaven’ was that
believers share his heavenly existence. Paul’s point is that believers
will share in the resurrection, not that they were also pre-existent. (3) If
‘from heaven’ referred to Christ’s pre-existence, it contradicts the point
made in the previous verse that the spiritual comes second.23 It is
therefore better to understand ‘from heaven’ to refer to Christ’s post-
resurrection body rather than pre-existence.
The Adam-Christ typology in Romans 5:12-21 is unique because of
the degree to which the disjunction between the type and antitype is
emphasised.24 This has led some commentators to conclude it is not
typology, but Cranfield correctly pointed out that the contrast is only
significant because of their typological correspondence.25 In addition,
the use of ‘type’ (τύπος) in 5:14 clearly indicates typology. Scroggs
argued the contrast is really between God’s grace in Christ and man’s
sin.26 The Adam-Christ typology is used to assure the Roman
Christians of the infinite superiority of God’s grace in Christ compared
with his earlier wrath.
There are two points of correspondence between Adam and Christ.
Both were single individuals: ‘the one man’ (τοῦ ἑνός) and ‘the one
man, Jesus Christ’ (τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρὼπου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ) (5:15).
Each did one act that had an effect on the rest of humanity:
‘Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for
all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification
that brings life for all men’ (5:18).27 As in the Corinthians passage, the
‘all men’ that are justified must refer to all men who are part of the
second Adam. Typological heightening is clearly seen when it is
remembered this is a contrast between God’s grace and his wrath. In
verse 15 the infinite superiority of God’s grace is shown because it is
not lessened as a result of the universal death that stemmed from the
one sin, but only becomes greater. In verse 16 the same point is made

23 Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 792; Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 287.
24 Steve Moyise, Paul and Scripture (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010): 25.
25 C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the

Romans (ICC, 1; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2002): 295.

26 Robin Scroggs, The Last Adam: A Study in Pauline Anthropology (Philadelphia:

Fortress Press, 1966): 81.

27 ὡς δι᾿ ἑνὸς παραπτώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς κατάκριμα, οὕτως

καὶ δι᾿ ἑνὸς δικαιώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς δικαίωσιν ζωῆς.
VANMAAREN: Adam-Christ Typology in Paul 281
by noting that God’s grace followed a greater number of sins and
brought a qualitatively better result. In verse 17, Paul argues for the
infinitely greater and more assured reign of those in Christ on the basis
of the universal reign of death over those in Adam. Many
commentators understand the obedience of Christ in verse 19 to refer to
Christ’s sinless life.28 While this must remain a possibility, the
parallelism with verse 18, which clearly refers to Christ’s death, and
the theme of justification suggest that Paul used ‘obedience’ to refer
specifically to Christ’s ‘subjective disposition in the face of death’.29
This summary of 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5 has shown that
Paul understood Adam to be a type of Christ because he prefigured
Christ as one man who did one action that had consequences for all
those who participated in his image. While ‘heavenly’ in 1 Corinthians
15:47 can be read to refer to Christ’s pre-existence, and ‘obedience’ in
Romans 5:19 can be understood to refer to Christ’s sinless life, in both
cases the better contextual reading understands these to refer
respectively to the resurrected Christ and Christ’s obedience in death.

4. The Development of the Adam-Christ Typology in the

Church Fathers

4.1 Irenaeus
The first extant writing of the early church to make use of the Adam-
Christ typology was by Irenaeus in his anti-gnostic polemic Adversus
Haereses (c. 180). Typology, as the tool that enabled Irenaeus to be the
first to systematically join the Old and New Testaments, plays a major
role in his writings.30 Regarding the Adam-Christ typology, Jean
Daniélou writes that Irenaeus ‘integrates into a theological scheme the
scattered remarks of St. Paul, attempting a further precision and
systematization’.31 Irenaeus’s use of the Adam-Christ typology is

28 Käsemann, Romans, 157; Cranfield, Romans, 291; Joseph Fitzmyer, Romans

(ABD, 33; New York: Doubleday, 1993): 421.

29 Brendan Byrne, Romans (Sacra Pagina, 6; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press,

1996): 181. See also Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia, 59;
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007): 386; James D. G. Dunn, Romans (Word, 38;
Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1988): 284.
30 Eric Osborn, Irenaeus of Lyons (Cambridge: Cambridge, 2001): 184.
31 Jean Daniélou, From Shadows to Reality: Studies in the Typology of the Fathers

(Westminster: Newman Press, 1960): 31.

282 TYNDALE BULLETIN 64.2 (2013)
closely connected to his well-known idea of recapitulation taken from
Ephesians. For Irenaeus, Christ ‘recapitulates’ the work of Adam by
undoing his sin by his work on the cross and succeeding where Adam
failed. He understands Christ to recapitulate the whole creation, not just
Adam.32 Woollcombe notes that this is not a new idea, but is
entrenched in Old Testament prophecy where it is seen most clearly in
the way Ezekiel’s temple was a recapitulation of Solomon’s temple. 33
Irenaeus’ most extensive interaction with the Adam-Christ typology
was in the third book of Adversus Haereses. While Irenaeus noted in
chapter 16 that proofs showing Jesus to be the Christ are written
throughout the Old Testament, he did not mention the Adam-Christ
typology until chapter 18. Here he argued against the belief that Jesus
and Christ are two distinct beings. In support of the doctrine that Jesus
existed prior to his life on earth Irenaeus noted that Jesus’ purpose in
coming to earth was to begin anew the long line of human beings and
thereby bring salvation.34 The purpose of this coming was to recover
what was lost in Adam. In this same chapter he included three
quotations from 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5. In most cases where
Irenaeus used the Adam-Christ typology, he also quoted the two
Pauline passages, showing that his typology was derived from and
highly dependent on Paul. Toward the end of this chapter Irenaeus
returned to this comparison and, paraphrasing Romans 5:19, wrote:
‘For as by the disobedience of the one man who was originally molded
from virgin soil, the many were made sinners, and forfeited life; so was
it necessary that, by the obedience of the one man, who was originally
born from a virgin, many should be justified and receive salvation.’35
Here Irenaeus expanded on Paul’s typology and added another point of
comparison: As Adam was moulded from virgin soil, so Christ was

32 Robert L. Wilkin, Judaism and the Early Christian Mind: A Study of Cyril of
Alexandria’s Exegesis and Theology (New Haven: Yale, 1971): 97.
33 K. J. Woollcombe, ‘The Biblical Origins and Patristic Development of Typology’

in Essays on Typology (Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1957): 39-75, esp. 43.

34 Irenaeus, Haer., 3.18.1; Alexander Roberts, trans., Against Heresy (ANF 1; Ann

Arbor, MI: Cushing Mallow, 1975): 446; Adelin Rousseau, trans., Contre les heresies
(SC 211; Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2002–06): 367.
35 Irenaeus, Haer., 3.18.7 (SC 210:369-71; ANF 1:448). ῞Ωσπερ γὰρ διὰ τῆς

παρακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου τοῦ πρώτως ἐκ γῆς ἀνεργάστου πεπλασμένου

ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεσταθησαν οἱ πολλοὶ καὶ ἀπέβαλον τὴν ζωήν, οὕτως ἔδει καὶ δι᾿
ὑπακοῆς ἐνὸς ἀνθρώπου τοῦ πρώτως ἐκ παρθένου γεγεννημένου δικαιωθῆναι
πολλοὺς καὶ ἀπολαβεῖν τὴν σωτηρίαν.
VANMAAREN: Adam-Christ Typology in Paul 283
born of a virgin. For Irenaeus, this point of correspondence guarantees
Christ is of the same flesh as Adam.36
In chapter 21, the Adam-Christ typology appeared again. Here
Irenaeus argued for the importance of the virgin birth. Toward the end
of the chapter, he returned to the comparison between the virgin soil
from which Adam was created, and the virgin birth of Christ. One
further aspect of this comparison was added here. Irenaeus wrote: ‘But
if the former was taken from the dust, and God was his maker, it was
incumbent that the latter also, making a recapitulation in Himself,
should be formed as man by God, to have an analogy with the former
as respects His origin.’37 Just as Adam had no earthly father, but was
formed by God, so Jesus had no earthly father, but his humanity was
formed by God. Here Irenaeus is clearly influenced by ‘dust’ in
1 Corinthians 15:47, but moves in a different direction than Paul.
Where Paul contrasts Adam’s earthly nature with Christ’s heavenly
(resurrected) nature, Irenaeus makes a positive comparison between
Adam’s earthly nature and the necessity of Christ also being made
man.
Irenaeus also made use of a Mary-Eve typology in the following
chapter to further develop his argument for the virgin birth. Although
this represents a distinct typology, probably an interpretation of Luke
1:39 in light of Genesis 3, it is still worth noting because of its close
proximity.38 The parallel is between Mary, who as a virgin obeyed
God, and Eve, who as a virgin did not obey.39 Irenaeus argued that Eve
must have been a virgin because, ‘they were both naked, and were not
ashamed’ (Genesis 2:25), and they had no understanding of
procreation.
There is one further correspondence that Irenaeus developed in his
Adam-Christ typology. To understand this it is necessary to quote
Irenaeus’ treatment in full.
But according to the cycle and progress of the days, after which one is
termed first, another second, and another third, if anybody seeks
diligently to learn upon what day out of the seven it was that Adam died,

36 Denis Minns, Irenaeus (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 1994): 88.
37 Irenaeus, Haer., 3.21.10 (SC 210:429-31; ANF 1:454). Εἰ δὲ ἐκεῖνος ἐκ μὲν γῆς
ἐλήφθη, ἐπλάσθη δὲ Λόγῳ Θεοῦ, ἔδει καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν Λόγον, ἀνακεφαλαίωσιν
τοῦ ᾿Αδαμ εἰς ἑαυτὸν ποιούμενον, τὴν τῆς αὐτῆς γεννήσεως ἔχειν ὁμοιότητα.
38 Bertrand Margerie, An Introduction to the History of Exegesis Vol. 1: The Greek

Fathers (Petersham, MA: Saint Bede’s Publications, 1994): 62.

39 Irenaeus, Haer., 3:22:4 (SC 210:439-41; ANF 1:455).
284 TYNDALE BULLETIN 64.2 (2013)
he will find it by examining the dispensation of the Lord. For by
summing up in Himself the whole human race from the beginning to the
end, He has also summed up its death. From this it is clear that the Lord
suffered death, in obedience to His Father, upon that day on which
Adam died while he disobeyed God. Now he died on the same day in
which he did eat. For God said, ‘In that day on which ye eat of it, ye
shall die by death’. The Lord, therefore, recapitulating in Himself this
day, underwent His sufferings upon the sixth day of the creation, on
which day man was created; thus granting him a second creation by
means of His passion, which is that [creation] out of death.40

The logic of this passage is elusive, but must be outlined as follows.

Irenaeus began by claiming it is possible to discover what day Adam
died by examining the dispensation of the Lord. Because Christ
summed up the whole human race into himself, including death, it
follows that the day Christ was obedient to his father must be the same
day (of the week) that Adam was disobedient. It is clear that on the
same day they ate from the tree they also died, because this was what
God had promised them. Since Christ died on the sixth day, Adam also
died on the sixth day of creation. Adam sinned and died the same day
he was created. Therefore Christ’s death corresponds not only to
Adam’s death, but also to the creation of man. Because of this, Christ’s
death was also the beginning of a new creation which recapitulates the
old creation.
Irenaeus’ Adam-Christ typology is closely related to Paul’s. It is
clear he was dependent on Paul because he rarely used the Adam-
Christ typology without quoting or alluding to one of the Pauline
passages. Irenaeus followed Paul in that Adam is a type of Christ
because he was one man whose actions had an effect on the rest of
humanity.
Irenaeus’ Adam-Christ typology also represents a substantial
expansion. He did this by combining it with the idea of recapitulation

40 Irenaeus, Haer., 5.23.2 (SC 153:291-93; ANF 1:551). Κατὰ δὲ τὸν κυκλον καὶ

δρόμον τῶν ἡμερῶν, καθ᾿ ὃν ἡ μὲν πρώτη, ἡ δὲ δευτέρα, ἡ δὲ τρίτη καλεῖται, ἐάν
τις βούληται ἀκριβῶς μαθεῖν ποίᾳ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκ τῶν ἑπτὰ ἡμερῶν ἀπέθανεν ᾿Αδὰμ,
εὑρήσει ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Κυρίου πραγματείας. ᾿Ανακεφαλαιούμενος γὰρ τὸν ὅλον
ἄνθρωπον εἰς ἑαυτὸν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς μέχρι τέλους, ἀνεκεφαλαιώσατο καὶ τὸν
θάνατον αὐτοῦ. Φανερὸν οὖν ὅτι ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τὸν θάνατον ὑπέμεινεν ὁ
Κύριος ὑπακούων τῷ Πατρί, ἐν ᾗ ἀπέθανεν ᾿Αδαμ παρακούσας Θεοῦ. ᾿Εν ᾗ δὲ
ἀπέθανεν, ἐν αὐτῃ καὶ ἔφαγεν. Εἶπεν γὰρ ὁ Θεός· ῟Ηι δ᾿ ἂν ἡμέρᾳ φάγητε ἀπ᾿
αὐτοῦ, θανάτῳ ἀποθανεῖσθε. Ταύτην οὖν τὴν ἡμέραν ἀνακεφαλαιούμενος εἰς
ἑαυτὸν ὁ Κύριος ἦλθεν ἐπὶ τὸ πάθος πρὸ μιᾶς τοῦ σαββάτου, ἥτις ἐστὶν ἡ ἕκτη
τῆς κρίσεως ἡμέρα, ἐν ᾗ καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐπλάσθη, τὴν δευτέραν πλάσιν αὐτῳ
τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ θανάτου διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου πάθους χαριζόμενος.
VANMAAREN: Adam-Christ Typology in Paul 285
he borrowed from Ephesians, enabling him to extend the typological
relation to the entire creation. Irenaeus added three additional points of
correspondence. The first was the correspondence between the
formation of the first and second Adam. Just as Adam was formed from
virgin soil, so Christ was born of a virgin. The second and third points
of correspondence are related to days of the week: the correspondence
between the day of Adam’s act of disobedience and the day of Christ’s
act of obedience and the correspondence between the day of the
creation of the race that is in Adam and the day of the creation of the
race that is in Christ. While the Adam-Christ typology is for Paul
centred around Adam’s sin and Christ’s death, Irenaeus expands this to
include typological correspondence with respect to origin and
incidental details (days of the week).

4.2 Hippolytus
Hippolytus (c. 170–c. 236), writing shortly after Irenaeus, also used the
Adam-Christ typology. The two passages below will serve to illustrate
his usage. The first is from Contra Noetum in which Hippolytus argued
against Noetus’ teaching that Christ was the father in person and
therefore the Father had been born, suffered and died. He writes:
So in the very same way in which he was proclaimed, he became present
as well, and manifested himself by becoming a new man from the virgin
and the Holy Spirit. While, as Word, he has the heavenly element that he
gets from his Father, he has the earthly element he gets by taking flesh
from the old Adam through the virgin. This is he who went forth into the
world and was manifested as God embodied, going forth as perfect man
– for he truly became man, and not just in appearance or figuratively
speaking.41

Hippolytus’ metaphysical understanding of Christ is that of a

combination of the Word from the heavenly nature of the father, and
the flesh from the earthly nature of the old Adam, and this constituted a
new man. The second passage is from the Treatise on Christ and
Antichrist:

41 Hippolytus, Noet., 17.4, 5; Greek text and English translation from: Robert
Buttersworth, trans., Contra Noetum (London: Heythrop, 1977): 86. καθ᾿ ὃν οὖν
τρόπον ἐκηρύχθη κατὰ τοῦτον καὶ παρών, ἐφανέρωσεν ἑαυτὸν ἐκ παρθένου καὶ
ἁγίου πνεύματος, καινὸς ἄνθρωπος γενόμενος· τὸ μὲν οὐράνιον ἔχων τὸ
πατρῷον ὡς Λόγος, τὸ δὲ ἐπίγειον ὡς ἐκ παλαιοῦ ᾿Αδὰμ διὰ παρθένου
σαρκούμενος. οὗτος προελθῶν εἰς κόσμον θεὸς ἐνσώματος ἐφανερώθη,
ἄνθρωπος τέλειος προελθών· οὐ γὰρ κατὰ φαντασίαν ἢ τροπήν, ἀλλὰ ἀληθῶς
γενόμενος ἄνθρωπος.
286 TYNDALE BULLETIN 64.2 (2013)
He does not hate the female on account of the woman’s act of
disobedience in the beginning, nor does he reject the male on account of
the man’s transgression. But he seeks all, and desires to save all, wishing
to make all the children of God, and calling all the saints unto one
perfect man. For there is also one Son (or Servant) of God, by whom we
too, receiving the regeneration through the Holy Spirit, desire to come
all unto one perfect and heavenly man.42

Here Hippolytus compared both the woman’s disobedience and the

man’s transgression with the perfect man, Jesus. He contrasted the
failure of the first with the perfection and newness of the second. While
there is not a clear comparison between Adam and Christ, there is a
clear sense in which the one who believes in Christ is transferred from
the realm of Adam to the realm of Christ. As far as it can be shown,
Hippolytus appears to be in basic agreement with Paul.43 While, like
Irenaeus, he did not identify what Christ’s obedience was, he also did
not include the additional points of correspondence found in Irenaeus.
Because of his limited use of the Adam-Christ typology it is not clear
whether he would have agreed with Irenaeus’ expanded understanding.
He does have an added emphasis on the importance of the virgin birth
which is not present in Paul and draws a contrast between Adam’s
sinful life and Christ’s sinless life.

4.3 Origen
While Origen displayed a varied understanding of Adam, he often
allegorised Adam as Christ and Eve as the church and cited Paul as a
forerunner, inspired by Ephesians 5:30-32.44 Typology has an
important place in Origen’s (c. 185–254) understanding of the spiritual

42 Hippolytus, Antichr., 3; J. H. MacMahon, trans., Treatise on Christ and Antichrist

(ANF 5; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995): 205; G. Bonwetsch and H. Achelis, eds.,
᾿Απόδειξις ἐκ τῶν ἁγίων γραφῶν περὶ Χριστοῦ καὶ περὶ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου (GCS
2; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich, 1987): 7. οὐδὲ θῆλυ διὰ τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς· γενομένην
παρακοὴν μισῶν, οὐδὲ τὸν ἄρρενα διὰ τὴν παράβασιν ἀτιμάζων, ἀλλὰ πάντας
ἐλεῶν καὶ πάντας σώθειν ἐπιθυμῶν, πάντας υἱοὺς Θεοῦ καταρτίσαι θέλων, καὶ
τοὺς πάντας ἁγίους εἰς ἕνα τέλειον ἄνθρωπον καλῶν. εἷς γὰρ ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ παῖς,
δι᾿ οὗ καὶ ἡμεῖς τυχόντες τὴν διὰ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἀναγέννησιν, εἰς τὸν ἕνα
τέλειον καὶ ἐπουράνιον ἄνθρωπον οἱ πάντες καταντῆσαι ἐπιθυμοῦμεν.
43 Maja Weyermann, ‘The Typologies of Adam-Christ and Eve-Mary, and Their

Relationship to One Another’, Anglican Theological Review 84, no. 3 (Summer 2002):
609-626.
44 C. P. Hammel, ‘Adam in Origen’ in The Making of Orthodoxy: Essays in Honour

of Henry Chadwick, ed. Rowan Williams (New York: Cambridge, 1989); Origen, De
Principiis, 4.3.1; Paul Koetschau, ed. (GCS 5; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich, 1913): 333.
VANMAAREN: Adam-Christ Typology in Paul 287
sense of Scripture.45 While the Adam-Christ typology is never
developed into a major exegetical theme, Origen does make use of it
briefly in his commentary on Romans.46 Because it is a commentary, he
remained quite close to the text as he explained Paul’s use and avoided
allegorical excess. Origen wrote: ‘Adam was a “type of that which was
to come”, not in his being a transgressor but in the following sense: just
as death had entered through him, so through the last Adam life has
entered this world; and just as, through him, condemnation comes to all
men, so also through Christ justification comes to all men’.47 Adam
was a type of Christ because he, like Christ, was a conduit through
whom a change came to all men. He further explained Adam’s
typological relationship to Christ by the difference between a genus
and a species. He wrote:
The type is similar in genus but contrary in species. For the type is
similar in genus in that, just as something is diffused to very many men
from the one Adam, so also something is diffused to very many men
from the one Christ. But the species is contrary because the transgression
which began with Adam ‘made the many sinners’, whereas by Christ’s
obedience ‘many will be made righteous’.48

From this passage it is clear that Origen understood the correspondence

between Adam and Christ to be one man whose actions had an effect
on the rest of humanity. Where Adam transgressed, Christ was
obedient. Origen, like Irenaeus and Hippolytus, did not identify
whether Christ’s obedience was specifically his death on the cross or
the entirety of his sinless life.
Origen also was aware of the typological heightening of the antitype
throughout his discussion. While commenting on Romans 5:20 he
wrote: ‘When [Paul] makes the comparison with each of the things

45 Margerie, History, 112.

46 Wilkin, Judaism, 96.
47 Origen, Romans, 5.1.7; Thomas P. Scheck, trans., Commentary on the Epistle to the

Romans, Books 1–5 (FC 103; Washington DC: Catholic University Press, 2001): 307-
308; Luke Brésard, trans., Commentaire sur l’épître aux Romains (SC 539; Paris: Les
Éditions du Cerf, 2010): 358: qui Adam forma futuri est, non secundum quod
praeuaricatus est sed secundum hoc quod sicut per ipsum mors ita per nouissimum
Adam uita ingressa est in hunc mundum, et sicut per illum in omnes homines
condemnatio ita et per Christum in omnes homines iustificatio.
48 Origen, Romans, 5.2.2 (SC 539:406; FC 103:329). Per genus namque similis est

forma in eo quod sicut ab uno Adam in plures homines diffunditur ita et ab uno Christo
in plures homines diffunditur. Species uero contraria quod ex Adam praeuaricatione
coepta peccatores constituti sunt multi; Christi uero oboedientia iusti constituentur
multi.
288 TYNDALE BULLETIN 64.2 (2013)
which seem to have occurred as a result of Adam’s transgression, he
shows that what has been amassed through the grace of Christ as a
means of bringing healing is in opposition and much greater.’49 The
consequences of Christ’s work are always understood to be greater than
the consequences of Adam’s sin.
Origen did not expand the Adam-Christ typology beyond that
outlined by Paul in Romans. He agreed with Paul that Adam is a type
of Christ because he was one man whose actions had an effect on all
humanity, and acknowledged the existence of typological heightening.

4.4 Methodius
Methodius (d. c. 311) was the first extant writer to treat the Adam-
Christ typology as a subject in itself and to argue for its value as an
interpretative principle.50 His understanding shows significant
development beyond Paul and emphasises the similarities between
Adam and Christ to the extent that the differences almost disappear.51
In The Banquet of the Ten Virgins Methodius described a festival of
ten virgins in the garden of Arete who praised the virtues of virginity.
In the third of ten discourses, Methodius addressed a disagreement with
Theophila who argued that Paul understood the story of Adam and Eve
only in its natural sense in Ephesians 5:32. Methodius first asked
whether it is right for Paul to compare Adam, who was cast from the
garden lest he eat from the tree of life, to him who is the tree of life.52
Methodius noted that this is not the correct point of comparison and
redirected the readers’ attention to the true correspondence in the
following chapter. He wrote: ‘Christ became the very same as Adam
through the descent of the Logos into Him.’53 Further expounding on

49 Origen, Romans, 5.6.5 (SC 539:448-50; FC 103:347) Sicut in superioribus

docuimus ubi per singula quaeque comparationem facit eorum quae ex
praeuaricatione Adam accidisse uidentur aduersa et multo maiora ostendit esse quae
per gratiam Christi ad remedium conlata sunt, ita et in praesenti loco cum dixisset
abundasse peccatum sermone dignissimo usus est quo abundantiam uinceret et
superabundantiam poneret.
50 Wilkin, Judaism, 101.
51 Wilkin, Judaism, 100.
52 Methodius, Symposium, 3.3; Herbert Musurillo, trans., Symposium: A Treatise on

Chastity (ACW 27; New York: Newman, 1958): 61; Victor-Henry Debidour, Le
Banquet (SC 95; Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1963): 96.
53 Methodius, Symposium, 3.4 (SC 95:96-98; ACW 27:61). ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο

Χριστὸν καὶ αὐτὸν γεγονέναι διὰ τὸ τὸν πρὸ αἰώνων εἰς αὐτὸν ἐγκατασκῆψαι
λόγον.
VANMAAREN: Adam-Christ Typology in Paul 289
this, he wrote: ‘For thus, in remodeling what was from the beginning
and molding it all over again of the Virgin and the Spirit, He fashioned
the same Man; just as in the beginning when the earth was virgin and
untilled, God had taken dust from the earth and formed, without seed,
the most rational being from it.’54 The correspondence between Adam
and Christ is that, just as Adam was born of untilled, virgin soil, so was
Christ formed from a virgin. In the following chapter Methodius
allegorised Jeremiah 18:1-4 to make this same point. In this passage
Jeremiah watched as the potter, who was moulding a pot, formed the
lump of clay into a different pot because the first one was flawed. Just
after this the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah and told him God
would do to Israel what this potter did to his clay. He understood the
first flawed pot allegorically as Adam and the second refashioned pot
as the second Adam. He portrayed Adam as a soft lump of clay which,
before it was able to harden, was ruined by sin which ran down it like
water. In contrast, God pre-hardened the second Adam, uniting the clay
(i.e. human flesh) with the Word while he was still in the womb so that
when he was brought forth to life he was already hardened. The point
of correspondence here remains the origin of the two. This is the only
correspondence Methodius acknowledged.
The comparison between Methodius and Paul shows that there is
little continuity between the way these two writers understood the
Adam-Christ typology. There are two significant differences between
Methodius and Paul. For Paul the correspondence centred around the
redeeming work of Christ’s act of righteousness on the cross. For
Methodius, the correspondence centred around the manner of Christ’s
birth. Second, for Methodius, the virgin birth was the basis on which
the new humanity was created. He understood the Holy Spirit to have
replaced man’s sinful sperm to create Jesus as a new perfect humanity,
and negate the power of sin in his humanity. In contrast, the reason for
the new humanity in Paul was Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, which
made him the ‘firstborn of the new creation’ (Colossians 1:15). Christ’s
resurrection and the future resurrection of believers do not play
important roles in his Adam-Christ typology. What appears to have
been a new expansion for Irenaeus, the correspondence between Adam

54 Methodius, Symposium, 3.4 (SC 95:98; ACW 27:61). Ταύτῃ γὰρ ἀναζωγραφῶν
τὰ ἐξ ὑπαρχῆς καὶ ἀναπλάσσων αὖθις ἐκ παρθένου καὶ πνεύματος τεκταίνεται
τὸν αὐτόν, ἐπειδὴ καὶ κατ᾿ ἀρχὰς οὔσης παρθένου τῆς γῆς ἔτι καὶ ἀνηρότου
λαβὼν χοῦν τὸ λογικώτατον ἐπλάσατο ζῳον ἀπ᾿ αὐτῆς ὁ θεὸς ἄνευ σπορᾶς.
290 TYNDALE BULLETIN 64.2 (2013)
and Christ regarding origins, appears in Methodius as the primary point
of correspondence while he at the same time moves away from the
correspondence between Adam’s sin and Christ’s death.
Methodius’ shift in emphasis from Christ’s death and resurrection to
Christ’s virgin birth and sinless life is soteriologically significant. For
Paul the resurrected Jesus is the firstborn of the new humanity and the
one whom believers, who have the deposit of the Spirit, will eventually
be made like. For Methodius, the pre-resurrected Jesus, who was born
of a virgin and thereby made perfect by the union of the Holy Spirit
with the virgin is the one whom new humanity will be like. Christ’s
death and resurrection are overshadowed by his virgin birth and
speculation regarding Christ’s earthly constitution.

4.5 Augustine
Augustine (354-430) employed the Adam-Christ typology in his
formulation of original sin and repeatedly revisited it in polemics
against Pelagius. He was always dependent on Paul and often
addressed it while commenting on Romans 5.55 Augustine’s comments
on 1 John 3:8 nicely illustrate his polished use of the Adam-Christ
typology.
Therefore, brothers, mark well two births, Adam and Christ. There are
two men; but one of the men is a man, the other is God. Through the
man-man we are sinners; through the man-God we are justified. That
birth casts down to death; this birth raised up to life. That birth draws sin
with it; this birth sets free from sin. For Christ came as a man precisely
in order that he might undo the sins of man.56

The two births refer, not to the creation of Adam and the virgin birth of
Christ, but to humanity’s first birth into Adam and its second birth into
Christ. As in this example, Augustine always placed the focus on the
results of the first and second Adam. He did not expand on Paul’s

55 Gerald Bronner, ‘Adam’ in Augustinus-Lexikon (Basel: Schwabe, 1994): 63-87,

esp. 84.
56 Augustine, In epistulam Iohannis ad Parthos, 4.11; John W. Rettig, trans.,

Tractates on the First Epistle of John (FC 92; Washington DC: Catholic University
Press, 1995): 184; In Iohannis Epistulam ad Parthos Tractatus decem (Œuvres de
Saint Augustin 76; Paris: Institut d’Études Augustiniennes, 2008): 207-208. Ergo duas
natiuitates adtendite, fratres: Adam et Christum. Duo sunt homines, sed unus ipsorum
homo homo, alter ipsorum homo Deus. Per hominem hominem peccatores sumus; per
hominem Deum iustificamur. Natiuitas illa deiecit ad mortem; natiuitas ista erexit ad
uitam. Natiuitas illa trahit secum peccatum; natiuitas ista liberat a peccato. Ideo enim
uenit Christus homo ut solueret peccata hominum.
VANMAAREN: Adam-Christ Typology in Paul 291
typology but also did not identify the actual point of correspondence
between Adam and Christ. While commenting on Romans 5 Augustine
stated ‘This, then, is the distinction: in Adam one sin was condemned,
but by the Lord many sins were forgiven.’57 This shows that for
Augustine, the cross played a larger role in the Adam-Christ typology
than it does for Methodius.
However, like Methodius, Augustine also shows interest in the
virgin birth. While explaining how Christ was able to fulfil justice in a
way that other men were not, he used the Adam-Christ typology where
the comparison is between Christ and those who are in Adam and
participate in original sin.
If, then, he who would fulfill [justice] is missing, how does he not
fulfill? Because he has been born with the transmission of sin and death.
Born of Adam, he came bringing with him what was conceived there.
The first man fell; and all who were born of him came bringing from
him the concupiscence of the flesh. It was necessary that another man be
born who came bringing no concupiscence. A man, and a man; a man
for death, and a man for life. So says the Apostle, ‘For indeed by a man
came death and by a man the resurrection of the dead.’58

The purpose of this passage was to provide an explanation for how

Christ was able to save as was no man before him. Because of this
purpose Augustine did not indicate specifically whether the pre-
resurrected Christ or the resurrected Christ is the second humanity, but
the focus on the new constitution of the second Adam which lacks the
first Adam’s concupiscence seems to indicate that Augustine, like
Methodius, understood the pre-resurrected Christ to be the second
Adam.

57 Augustine, Expositio quarundam Propositionum ex Epistola ad Romanos, 29;

English translation and Latin from: Paula Fredrickson, trans., Augustine on Romans:
Propositions from the Epistle to the Romans, An Unfinished Commentary on the
Epistle to the Romans (Texts and Translations 23; Chico, CA: Scholars, 1982): 11.
Ergo haec differentia est, quod in Adam unum delictum damnatum est, a domino autem
multa donata sunt.
58 Augustine, In Iohannis euangelium tractatus CXXIV, 3.12; John W. Rettig, trans.,

Tractates on the Gospel of John 1–10 (FC 78; Washington DC: Catholic University
Press, 2000): 85; M. F. Berrouard, trans., Homilies sur l’Évangile de Saint Jean I–XVI
(Œuvres de Saint Augustin 71; Desclée de Brouwer, 1969): 232. Si ergo deest qui
impleat, unde non implet? Quia natus cum traduce peccati et mortis. De Adam natus,
traxit secum quod ibi conceptum est. Cecidit primus homo, et omnes qui de illo nati
sunt de illo traxerunt concupiscentiam carnis. Oportebat ut nasceretur alius homo qui
nullam traxit concupiscentiam. Homo, et homo: homo ad mortem, et homo ad vitam.
Sic dicit apostolus: Quoniam quidem per hominem mors, et per hominem resurrectio
mortuorum.
292 TYNDALE BULLETIN 64.2 (2013)
That Augustine had in mind the pre-resurrected Christ is further
shown by considering Augustine’s explanation of Paul’s statement in
Romans 5:18 that ‘the result of one act of righteousness was
justification that brings life to all men’. He wrote: ‘He said, moreover,
all to condemnation through Adam, and all to justification through
Christ: not, of course, that Christ removes to life all those who die in
Adam; but he said “all” and “all”, because, as without Adam no one
goes to death, so without Christ no man to life.’59 The need to explain
why Paul did not mean ‘all men’ when he wrote ‘all’ disappears if the
resurrected Christ is the second Adam, in which case ‘all men’ who are
in Christ are those who receive resurrection bodies as Christ has and
not every man who is in Adam.
Augustine’s polished use of the Adam-Christ typology did not
expand on Paul as did those of Irenaeus and Methodius, partly because
he never explicitly outlined the points of correspondence. He
emphasises, however, that it is Christ as a man born without the
concupiscence of Adam that makes him the progenitor of a new race
rather than Christ’s resurrection from the dead. The typological
correspondence between the creation of Adam and Christ’s virgin birth
which was seen in Irenaeus and Hippolytus and made the basis of the
typology in Methodius was not acknowledged by Augustine. However,
Augustine did echo Methodius’ identification of the pre-resurrected
Christ as the basis of his role as the second Adam. For Methodius, this
identification was connected closely with the only point of
correspondence he acknowledged: the creation of Adam and the virgin
birth of Christ.
Augustine’s understanding of the pre-resurrected Christ as the
second Adam could indicate a processed acceptance of this new
correspondence between the creation of Adam and Christ’s virgin birth
as the foundation for the Adam-Christ typology. However, because
Augustine never explicitly stated this, it remains conjecture.

59 Augustine, De nuptiis et concupiscentia, 2.46; F. J. Thonnard, trans., Premières

Polémiques Contre Julien (Œuvres de Saint Augustin 23; Desclée de Brouwer, 1974):
250; Peter Holmes and Robert Ernest Wallis, trans., Anti-Pelagian Writings (NPNF 5;
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994): 302. Omnes autem dixit ad condemnationem per
Adam et omnes ad iustificationem per Christum, cum utique non omnes eos, qui
moriuntur in Adam transferat Christus ad uitam. Sed omnes dixit atque omnes, quia
sicut sine Adam nullus ad mortem, ita sine Christo nullus ad uitam;
VANMAAREN: Adam-Christ Typology in Paul 293
4.6 Cyril of Alexandria
Significant discussion of the Adam-Christ typology took place in the
Christological controversies of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries where it
was used to support the solidarity between Christ and humanity.60
Athanasius and Apollinaris both used the Adam-Christ typology to
argue Christ was able to conquer death because he was the man sent
from heaven.61 Because of the more extensive use of the Adam-Christ
typology in this period and the similar themes in each writer, Cyril of
Alexandria’s view will be addressed as representative of the period. His
use of the Adam-Christ typology came out most clearly in his
commentary on the gospel of John and this will be examined here.
Cyril first addressed the topic while commenting on John 1:14.
Referring to the first half of the verse Cyril wrote:
But profitably does he affirm that the Word dwelt in us, unveiling to us
this deep Mystery also: for we were all in Christ, and the community of
human nature mounted up unto His Person; since therefore was He
named the last Adam, giving richly to the common nature all things that
belong to joy and glory, even as the first Adam what pertained to
corruption and dejection.62

Here Cyril stated that because all humanity rose up to the person of
Christ, he was called the last Adam. Just as Adam gave to humanity
what was corrupt and dejected, so Christ gave all that was part of joy
and glory. Christ is understood to be the second Adam because he gave
‘to the common nature all things that belong to joy and glory’. The
basis on which Christ is the second Adam is that he was a human
being, just like Adam, and yet he was found to be sufficient where
Adam was deficient. This represents a more processed Adam-Christ
typology than Paul, but it remains unclear from this passage in what
way the last Adam gave ‘to the common nature all things that belong to
joy and glory’.

60 Wilkin, Judaism, 102.

61 Wilkin, Judaism, 106.
62 Cyril of Alexandria, Joannem 1.9; P. E. Pusey and Thomas Randell, trans.,

Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John (3 vols.; Oxford: J. Parker, 1874–
85): 1:141; P. E. Pusey, ed., Sancti Patris Nostri Cyrilli Archiepiscopi In D. Joannis
Evangelium (3 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1872): 1:141. ἐσκηνωκέναι γε μὴν τὸν
Λόγον ἐν ἡμῖν χρησίμως διισχυρίζεται, βαθὺ καὶ τοῦτο λίαν ἡμῖν ἐκκαλύπτων
τὸ πυστήριον· πάντες γὰρ ἦμεν ἐν Χριστῷ, καὶ τὸ κοινὸν τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος εἰς
τὸ αὐτοῦ ἀναβαίνει πρόσωπον, ἐπεὶ καὶ ἔσχατος ᾿Αδὰμ διὰ τοῦτο
κατωνόμασται, τῇ κοινότητι τῆς φύσεως πάντα πλουτῶν τὰ εἰς εὐθυμίαν καὶ
δόξαν, ὥσπερ οὖν καὶ ὁ πρῶτος ᾿Αδὰμ τὸ εἰς φθορὰν καὶ κατήφειαν.
294 TYNDALE BULLETIN 64.2 (2013)
The second time the Adam-Christ typology appeared in Cyril’s
commentary is in his discussion of Jesus’ statement in John 16:33: ‘I
have overcome the world!’ He interpreted this statement to mean that
just as Christ proved himself to be superior to sin and death, so those
who attempt the struggle for his sake will be given his strength to
overcome sin and death. He further stated:
For if He conquered as God, then it profited us nothing; but if as man,
we are herein conquerors. For He is to us the Second Adam come from
heaven, according to the Scripture. Just as then we have borne the image
of the earthy, according to its likeness falling under the yoke of sin, so
likewise also shall we bear the image of the heavenly, that is Christ,
overcoming the power of sin and triumphing over all the tribulation of
the world; for Christ has overcome the world.63

Here the Adam-Christ typology was used to explain how Christ’s work
of overcoming the world is transferred to believers. His quotation of
1 Corinthians 15:49 showed that he was clearly influenced by Paul. He
understood ‘we have borne the image of the earthy’ to refer to falling
into the bondage of sin, and ‘so likewise also shall we bear the image
of the heavenly’ to refer to overcoming the world. Again, the typology
was more polished than Paul’s and so the actual points of
correspondence were not stated explicitly. These will become clear
when we look at two more examples.
A third occurrence of the Adam-Christ typology appeared in Cyril’s
comments on Jesus’ trial before Pilate. Cyril equated Pilate with Satan
and compared the statement by Pilate in John 19:4, ‘I find no basis for
a charge against him’, with the fault Satan found in Adam.64 He further
expounded on this comparison with the primary comparison being
Adam’s one act of disobedience and Christ’s life of obedience with
their corresponding consequences for humanity. As was especially
clear in Methodius, it is Christ’s life of obedience, not his sacrificial
death, which is compared with Adam’s act of disobedience.

63 Cyril of Alexandria, Joannem, 11.2 (Pusey, 2:657). εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἐνίκησεν ὡς Θεός,

πρὸς ἡμᾶς οὐδέν, εἰ δὲ ὡς ἄνθρωπος, ἡμεῖς ἐν αὐτῷ νενικήκαμεν. δεύτερος γὰρ

ἡμῖν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ πέφηνεν ᾿Αδὰμ, κατὰ τὰς γραφάς. ὥσπερ οὖν πεφορέκαμεν
τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ χοϊκοῦ, καθ᾿ ὁμοιότητα τὴν ἐκείνου τῷ τῆς ἁμαρτίας
ὑποπεσόντες ζυγῷ, οὕτω δὴ πάντως φορέσομεν καὶ τὴν τοῦ ἐπουρανίου
μόρφωσιν, τουτέστι Χριστοῦ, νικῶντες τῆς ἁμαρτίας τὴν τυραννίδα, καὶ ἁπάσης
θλίψεως κατευμεγεθοῦντες κοσμικῆς· νενίκηκε γὰρ ὁ Χριστός.
64 Cyril of Alexandria, Joannem, 12 (Pusey, 3:63).
VANMAAREN: Adam-Christ Typology in Paul 295
One final use of the Adam-Christ typology that is especially helpful
was in Cyril’s comments on Jesus’ baptism. The numerous attempts by
different church fathers to explain why Jesus was baptised show that
this was a passage that caused many problems for the early church.65
Cyril developed a unique explanation with the help of the Adam-Christ
typology. He began by stating that when God created Adam in the
image and likeness of God he gave him his Holy Spirit, but when he
sinned, God ‘recalled the grace given him’.66 Although humanity still
had God’s Spirit, the image of God was defaced because of the sin of
Adam. Eventually, the Spirit departed completely, and man was left
ignorant of God. God decided to return humanity to its original image
by sending the second Adam, who met the requirements of the first
Adam but was different because he was from heaven. Cyril wrote: ‘He
sends in our likeness his own son who is by nature without change or
variation, who does not know sin, that as by the disobedience of the
first we became subject to divine wrath, so that through the obedience
of the second, we might both escape the curse and the evils from it
might come to nothing.’67 Wilkin noted that what was unique about
Cyril’s use here is that the second Adam is juxtaposed with Jesus as the
Son of God rather than his humanity.68 Apart from this instance, the
Adam-Christ typology had always been a way of speaking of Jesus’
humanity for Cyril. This passage makes it clear that, for Cyril, the
Adam-Christ typology was only fulfilled because Jesus was both God
and man. This also shows clear typological heightening. The difference
between the first and second Adam is that the second came from
heaven. Again, this is different from Christ as the one who was raised
from the dead. It is Christ’s pre-existence as the basis for his sinless life
rather than his atoning death on the cross as the act that enabled him to
be the second Adam.

65 Robert Wilkin, ‘Exegesis and the History of Theology: Reflections on the Adam-

Christ Typology in Cyril of Alexandria’, Church History 35 (June 1966): 137-56, esp.
146.
66 Cyril of Alexandria, Joannem, 2.1 (Pusey, 1:183). τὴν αὐτῷ δοθεῖσαν

ἀνεπράττετο χάριν.
67 Cyril of Alexandria, Joannem, 2.1 (Pusey, 1:184). πέμπει γὰρ εἰς ὁμοίωσιν τὴν

πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἄτρεπτον τε καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον ὄντα τῃ φύσει τὸν ἴδιον Υἱόν, καὶ τὸ
ἁμαρτάνειν οὐκ εἰδότα παντελῶς, ἵνα καθάπερ διὰ τῆς τοῦ πρώτου παρακοῆς
ὑπὸ θείαν γεγόναμεν ὀργήν, οὕτω διὰ τῆς ὑπακοῆς τοῦ δευτέρου, καὶ τὴν ἀρὰν
διαφύγωμεν καὶ τὰ ἐκ αὐτῆς ἀργήσῃ κακά.
68 Wilkin, Exegesis, 150.
296 TYNDALE BULLETIN 64.2 (2013)
Cyril, like Methodius, emphasised Christ’s pre-existence and perfect
life as the basis for the new humanity. This was seen most clearly in
Cyril’s discussion of Jesus’ baptism. The advantage that Christ had
over the first Adam was that he was the heavenly man, and therefore
able to resist sin where Adam could not. This emphasis on Christ’s pre-
existence was not perceptible in Paul’s Adam-Christ typology. For
Cyril, Christ’s perfect life was the foundation on which the new
humanity was built. Christ’s resurrection still has value because it
demonstrates the victory of Christ over death, but the consequence of
this was that it reduced the theological significance of the death and
resurrection of Jesus by placing greater emphasis on Jesus’ perfect life.

5. Conclusion
This comparison has examined the use of the Adam-Christ typology in
the early church. The development that has been traced was a shift
away from Christ’s death and resurrection and toward his pre-existence
and sinlessness. Paul understood the correspondence between Christ
and Adam to be that each was one man who did one act that had
consequences for all humanity. Christ’s obedience was his death on the
cross. In Irenaeus, Hippolytus and Origen, an additional corres-
pondence was found between the creation of Adam and Christ’s virgin
birth. In Methodius, this correspondence between the unique character
of the birth of each, and their similar lives became the basis of the
typology. The difference was that where Adam sinned, Christ did not.
Further reflection on the Adam-Christ typology and the influence of
other Scriptural passages expanded and transformed the Adam-Christ
typology in ways not explicit in Paul.
In addition, this development away from Christ’s death and
resurrection and toward his perfect life deemphasises Paul’s focus on
the future resurrection which is always implicit and at times explicit.
For Paul, the new humanity of which Christ is the progenitor is the
future resurrected humanity. The emphasis is placed in the future in
that those on earth are only part of this new humanity in so far as their
future resurrection has been guaranteed. In this way the new race in
Christ is much more ‘concrete’ (or will be). For the church fathers who
find the correspondence in Christ’s perfect life, the emphasis is on the
way that Christians are changed into God’s image on earth. This point
VANMAAREN: Adam-Christ Typology in Paul 297
is merely a difference in emphasis, for each person considered above
would certainly accept both the bodily resurrection of the dead and the
reality of transformation to the image of Christ in this life. For Paul, the
way in which Christ is the progenitor of a new humanity is that he is
the firstborn from among the dead and the new humanity are those who
will be resurrected as he was.